As a bit of sarcasm that Voltaire would appreciate let's all praise God for the disaster in Haiti. God is sovereign. He knows what he's doing. In fact this has been long overdue.

If this is a punishment sent by God then God's punishments are good, aren't they? We're all sinners so we deserve to die, right? People deserve what happens to them because Adam and Eve sinned, or because our parents sinned, or because of original sin (whatever that can possibly mean in this context for the children). God's goodness and glory are displayed in the sufferings and deaths of the victims along with the grieving surviving family members.

In any case, it's disasters like these that God sends to draw people to him, sort of like beating your wife in order to get her to love you, right? God is perfectly good. Glory be to God! He always does that which is perfectly good. So this is not a tragedy, not a disaster, not an "evil". This is all good! Praise God! Evil is nothing but a privation anyway, according to Augustine. It doesn't really exist!

In addition, consider this as a perfectly good divine method of population control. Every once-in-a-while God just has to do this because populations get out of hand and because of this they might upset the so-called perfectly fine tuned ecosystem he created. Never mind for a moment that a more humane way to control population is to control our sex drives, or female ovulation cycles, so that we don't even have a population control problem in the first place. And never mind that there is no reason for a miracle working God to be concerned with such a fine tuned ecosystem when he could sustain the world and control population growth by means of several perpetual miracles. He could even have averted that earthquake with one, like he should have done with the underwater earthquake that created the Indonesian tsunami of December 2004, which killed a quarter of a million people. If God had done this, then surprise! He still would remain hidden because no one would ever know he averted it, simply by virtue of the fact that it didn't happen!

No, God knows what he's doing and his ways are for the very best. We cannot even fathom how good God's ways are since he's omniscient and knows best. He has perfectly good reasons why he remains hidden, even though by means of a perpetual miracle God would have remained hidden here (but we're taught not to ask these kinds of questions). We know God is good by faith because we certainly cannot figure this out using the rational powers he created in us, even given his perfectly good revelation in the Bible.

Anyway, those damned Haitians are bad people, as Pat Robertson said. They made a pact with the Devil and deserve this. No wonder they don't have divine protection. And as a Christian I Just Do Not Give a Damn That People Die. Any true Christian who dies in this disaster will go to heaven anyway.

Besides, Jesus told us that when we see such things we should look up into the sky dome of heaven and be thankful, for this is yet another sign that Jesus is coming. Just ignore the many other previous disasters that have taken place like the Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1918 and the failed apocalyptic predictions that came with it of the end of the world. In fact, let's hope and pray things get worse because we'd rather be in heaven than here on earth. And ignore also the fact that if the world comes to an immediate end there are still billions of non-Christians who have not yet been reached with the saving knowledge of Jesus, many of whom could still be reached if God grants them more time. Ignore also that most these victims will burn in hell forever. God's patience cannot last forever. Who cares if he calls a halt to this world whenever he does? I don't. I only care about me. I want to go to be with God soon, today if possible. The people who wind up in hell deserve what they get, even those who die in this Haitian disaster. Let them burn. I'm just thankful that in God's graciousness toward me he didn't end the world before I got saved. Isn't God so full of it [grace, that is]? It's simply amazing!

So let's thank God and do nothing to prohibit his judgments on the people of Haiti, because it's God's will. And let's look to the sky for Jesus and help raise money for doomsday ministries that tell the world of the coming disaster upon the heathen for whom this disaster is being sent. We'll be raptured out of this mess, and even if not, his grace is sufficient for us. We know where we'll go when the time comes.

78
comments:

Well, the way I see it is that God's emotional life is infinitely complex and cannot be fathomed by us finite creatures. God isn't pleased in the death and suffering, in and of itself, of people in tragedies like this. It grieves Him in one sense. But in His ability to see the bigger picture and the final outcome that will accomplish His overall goal He is pleased. I don't praise God because of the tradgedy in and of itself. I praise God because in His infinte wisdom He will work it together for good. He has a moraly sufficient reason for allowing it to happen even if I don't know at the time what it is. I trust that He is good. His ways are the ways of infinite wisdom. Ours are not. God's sovereign will is hidden in mystery. We don't know it until it comes to pass. Neither are we to try to follow it or figure it out. Rather, we are to God by His revealed will which is loving our enemies and things of that nature.

So what you're saying then, Cole, is that because God is infinitely complex, God is limited? God's infinite "emotional complexity" (whatever that means) prevents God from being able to act on or prevent (or forces him to cause) horrific events such as earthquakes which take the lives of thousands of innocents in horrific suffering? Is that what you are saying? Because if you are saying that your god is one of these 3 things: Not omnipotent, an idiot, or a monster. Any of those 3 things disqualifies it as an entity worthy of worship, and most certainly disqualifies it as the Christian god.

Fortunately for you and the rest of us (but especially you) the God of the bible has the exact same chance of existing as the Gods of Olympus...which is to say: none.

The reason people are dying in Haiti is because the tectonic plates of the Earth are constantly moving, and because Haiti is unfortunately right on top of where two of those plates meet. It's NOT because of the action or inaction of some magical sky fairy. When you finally truly understand that, then everything makes sense, and the horror of what is going on in Haiti is not as difficult to understand or to deal with. It's still horrible, but you don't have to try to justify *why* it happened. It's nothing personal, it's just nature. and it's up to US (and us only) to deal with, fix, and (hopefully in the future) prevent these tragedies. _US_. Not imaginary sky fairies. Just us. Human beings behaving humanely.

I don't believe God is obligated to be merciful to His creation. Grace is unmerrited favor and therefore never owed. Injustice on God's part can't even arise. God reserves the right to have mercy on whomever and whatever He pleases. Whether it's common grace or saving grace. Since God does nothing wrong by witholding grace He remains good. Since He's good then He has a moraly sufficient reason for allowing what He does.

Then your God is truly the most horrific monster that could possibly be conceived of, and I have nothing but contempt for it...if it were real, which it isn't.

Instead, since you claim to genuinely believe such horrifically evil and debased things, I am forced to have nothing but contempt for you. Your delusions, despite the fact that you are probably not entirely to blame for holding them, are a poison upon humanity. They are a genuine existential threat to our continued existence as a species.

I hope one day soon we are able to eradicate (and by eradicate, I mean peacefully cure through education or medication) such dangerous delusions. Ignorance and insane religious zealotry such as yours is what will END our species. This is why many of us atheists will always fight you.

Well said, Dan. I couldn't agree more. However, it does not good arguing with these deluded people. Mental Illness cannot be argued with. I have a lot of experience with this. My mom is a paranoid schizophrenic. When she has an episode and she's deep in her delusions, the worse thing we could do was try and argue with her about them because it could cause her to go deeper into her delusions. It's no different with Cole. He is fully entrenched in his supernatural little world. No amount of reason or evidence will persuade him that he is wrong about his beliefs. His mind is like the pupil of an eye: The more light you expose to it, the tighter it closes.

John, I got in an argument with a woman on Huffington Post who posted that everyone needed to pray for the people of Haiti. I told her that was a useless endeavor because prayers don't work. She said they did and Jesus would answer the Haitian's prayers by helping and comforting them through this hard time. I said, ok, let's put this to the test. If every person who is in Haiti to help them left right now and all the food and water that has been shipped in was flown back to the states. And instead, everyone just prayed for them, what do you think would happen? Would food and water magically appear? Would the trapped people be magically freed? Would all the dead come back to life? Of course, she didn't respond back. She knows damned well that those people would die from starvation and every person trapped alive would eventually die from their injuries. Praying is equal to masturbating. Christians do it to make themselves feel better. It's a very selfish thing to do when so many are dying.

The problem with this whole sarcasm in the article is that it fails to address what is really happening with logical causes and effects in this temporary creation.The strawman assertions (with something imperfect from Pat Robertson) are evasive to what is really taking place in natural dissasters...as well as a misunderstanding with the usage of the English word "deserve" as it relates to those who end up in undesirable circumstances. Just as I am certain Pat Robertson would want to clarify what he meant by his statements..this is logically complicated because of all of the circumstances which make tragedies "logical to exist" when you begin to ask correct questions - like "what happened?"

The article clearly fails to differentiate between being thankful "in the midst" of circumstances verses praising God for disasters themselves. The reality is - it could have been worse. Someday the sun will suffer the logical result of the 2nd Law of Thermo and nothing is going to stop this. Everything that has a 'cause' is logical to exist.

"Oh yes, that Jesus was a horrific monster! Watch out for that cheek turning maneuver - it's a real killer......"

Matthew 25:41 (Jesus speaking to people at final judgment), ...Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

Revelation 14:11, And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night...

Revelation 20:12, 15, And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life...And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

II Thessalonians 1:9 Who shall be punished with EVERLASTING destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

Matthew 13:41-42, The Son of man (Jesus) shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

It sure sounds like Jesus will be the one doing the judging and casting into everlasting hell. Pretty monstrous from my pov.

Well, I find it really wierd that God, an invention of humans who needed justification for crime and punishment and comfort these hard times, is incapable of being understood. I think people have created gods with that are openly paradoxical and invisible because they can use the phrase "You cannot understand His divine complexity because you are limited". It is hard to understand why people let these vicous paradoxes or anti-thinking tools against people who try to make sense of their religion. John is not going to give up criticizing you if you use "No criticizing God" rule that no sane atheist will follow. "Infinite wisdom" and "God's sovereign in mystery" are all properties that you attribute to your god so that no one can criticize Him. Your god is just a poor assumption. There is no reason to believe something like your god or another persons aleins. Most everything you say begs the question. Is that so? How do you know? HOw do you know that true? Why are you right and some other religions false? Why are you so certain God exists? How can you possibly convince us if your arguments do not prove anything, just assume things. You even have the courage to speak for God and explain how He "grieves". YOu relies on this poor fallacy of "I do not understand; therefore, God exists." and "You do not understand God; therefore you cannot say anything about his nature (but I can because I know better than you)."

If you can speak about things you do not understand, John can speak about what he "cannot fathom". He has a lot of education in the God hypothesis. God kills people for a lot of reasons like calling people baldie, not giving up your property, and allowing other faiths in your kingdom. Most large natural disasters are attributed to God for some reason or another. I do not know why so many religions are obsessed with gods of wrath, probably has something to do with bad reasoning.

Oh, loving your enemies does not mean you do not kill or enslave them. Christians will kill all sorts of people like witches, muslims, homosexuals, raped women, naughty children.... Christians are just humans. Their morality will continue to evolve. They have mostly stopped killing witches. They have almost completely stopped owning slaves. Later they have allowed more freedom of religion and nonreligion. Later they may become more accepting of morality of people of no religion. Maybe comeday, I will never have to hear that terrible word "Hell" ever again. Maybe people will stop saying terrible things like "you have to believe in X or else you will be tortured for all eternity". They say it with so much conviction that it is disconcerting.

The world may divide itself more from truthiness towards carefully proven theories. I am becoming depress at reading such old fashioned non-thinking in the comments.

Cole, to point out the aburdity of your first post, I'll replace "God" with "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "He/Him/His" for "His Noodlyness":

"Well, the way I see it is that The Flying Spaghetti Monster's emotional life is infinitely complex and cannot be fathomed by us finite creatures. The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't pleased in the death and suffering, in and of itself, of people in tragedies like this. It grieves His Noodlyness in one sense. But in His Noodlyness' ability to see the bigger picture and the final outcome that will accomplish His Noodlyness' overall goal His Noodlyness is pleased. I don't praise The Flying Spaghetti Monster because of the tradgedy in and of itself. I praise The Flying Spaghetti Monster because in His Noodlyness infinte wisdom His Noodlyness will work it together for good. His Noodlyness has a moraly sufficient reason for allowing it to happen even if I don't know at the time what it is. I trust that His Noodlyness is good. His Noodlyness' ways are the ways of infinite wisdom. Ours are not. The Flying Spaghetti Monster's sovereign will is hidden in mystery. We don't know it until it comes to pass. Neither are we to try to follow it or figure it out. Rather, we are to The Flying Spaghetti Monster by His Noodlyness' revealed will which is loving our enemies and things of that nature."

I realize that some people find Moloch's insistance upon human sacrifice to be morally wrong. But who are we to judge the ways of our infinite god, Moloch? Since Moloch is the source of all life he has the right to take life at any time and in any way he wishes.

Well, the way I see it is that Moloch's emotional life is infinitely complex and cannot be fathomed by us finite creatures. Moloch isn't pleased in the death and suffering of child sacrifice, in and of itself.. It grieves Him in one sense. But in His ability to see the bigger picture and the final outcome that will accomplish His overall goal He is pleased.

I don't praise Moloch because of burning children alive in and of itself. I praise Moloch because in His infinte wisdom He will work it together for good. He has a moraly sufficient reason for allowing it to happen even if I don't know at the time what it is. I trust that He is good. His ways are the ways of infinite wisdom. Ours are not.

Moloch's sovereign will is hidden in mystery. We don't know it until it comes to pass. Neither are we to try to follow it or figure it out. Rather, we are to know Moloch by His revealed will which is ensuring fertility and things of that nature.

Eric,Please understand that I agree with many many things you are saying...but there are INDEED answers to these questions..and understanding the progression and how it is NOT circular is important. Often times Christians DO take the easy road of "it's all a mystery" when there are logical answers to consider. You do not need to first "assume" a Creator to believe in a Creator...but understanding the progression from Strong/Explicit/Hard Atheism to born-again Christianity (which "contains" the Fundamental Logic (logos) of the universe) is an important one based on logic/reason/and preponderance of evidences. God does not call the Christian to Fideism.

hi zen - in response to your scriptural quotations describing the assigned area for those caught up in destructiveness --- are you saying that you would cozy up to someone who held you in contempt for turning your cheek away from them when they were trying to condemn you??? just wondering.....you don't seem like the type that would hold a cheek turner in contempt.

I'm only going to make one response to your parody. Augustine did not say evil did not exist. He said it has a secondary or parasitic nature. It cannot exist apart from the good, which is prior in time and metaphysically prior. Augustine (and CS Lewis following him in Mere Christianity) said that God did not create evil in the sense he created the physical universe and humans in his image (as good). Evil comes from the twisting and distoring of the antecedent good. It is a lack where a lack hurts. So, a stone not having eyes is not evil; but a person not having eyes is. Evil is real in the sense that rust is real. But rust cannot exist apart from metal and certain conditions pertaining to that metal.

The worldviews that claim evil does not exist are nihilism and nondualism, not Christianity.

Of course, the very idea of evil presupposes a design plan and proper function that has somehow been violated. Atheism cannot provide this. But that takes me into an area beyond my basic point.

"Amos 3:6 "...If there is calamity in a city, will not Yahweh have done it?"

Generally this verse is taken to mean that Yes, he will have done it. Yet see the answer in verse 7:

"Surely the Lord Yahweh does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets."

So, Yahweh would not bring calamity on Haiti without first revealing it to a prophet." -beowulf2k8

Or, it is not judgement unless God specifies it as being His judgement through a real prophet.

The whole problem that is being ignored here is "how" is this beingdone. Without going into the details of atemporal states of ordination and sunergeism and infinite determinism relative to causes and effects which can be observed as well as interacted with..we are ignoring the mathematical determiners and capabilities of such a Creator as to allow for both absolue choices as well as so called "natural causes" and a natural order of things. Even if it is infinitely beyond our capability to be omniscient, we can still see applications of natural theology which teach us some level of God's capability to be inclusive of choices (the question becomes "what is a choice?")

There are over a dozen reasons we can list for why suffering would exist...but the problem is "we often don't know which reasons apply to which individuals at that point in time." Clearly an earthquake that results in death is judgement for anyone who didn'tknow Christ...but it is this way for ALL deaths. 1000 years from now, what will be the difference between whether or not you died in a plane crash, a storm or an earthquake? We all die. Fifty years from now I will probably be dead (on earth in this temporary body)as well as most of you. Death comes to us all..and it affects us in different ways.This is completely consistent with theism and Christianity.

1. I would argue that good and evil are NOT exact opposites. (good is the standard by which evil is judged, evil is NOT a standard by which good is judged).

2. You have to be careful with the word "evil" itself because it can have a double meaning. In one case it can refer to sin and disobedience which God did NOT create..and in other instances it can refer to ill circumstances which God DOES accept responsibility for.

3. Complication rather than contradicition. God creates "beings" who create themselves. That is why sin anddisobedience are a potential byproduct of choice rather than God somehow creating the evil end result of the decision itself. Volition is real..but still limited to circumstances.

The above 3 points will naturally raise more questions than they answer. This is logical also, because so much of what we have been taught is not only anthropomorphic...it is error.Hyper-technicality only leads us to contradiction rather than seeking to understand.

"The whole problem that is being ignored here is 'how' is this beingdone. Without going into the details of atemporal states of ordination and sunergeism and infinite determinism relative to causes and effects which can be observed as well as interacted with"

Breckmin, please learn English. What are you trying to say, that your a Calvinist devil-god worshiper who believes that God sticks his hands up our butts and makes us do everything we do like a bunch of sock puppets?

If the creation was all rocks and nothing but rocks then you might have a point. But once you create sentient beings, you do have a responsibility to your creation. PERIOD. Any god who thinks otherwise isn't worth toilet paper you invented him on.

(I am a theist btw, not an atheist, just in case anyone is of a mind to misinterpret the last comment. I will not tolerate the absurd notion that God can do evil and still be good. That's just stupid, and calling it stupid is the most elegant refutation such a stupid idea deserves.)

"Cole wrote: I don't believe God is obligated to be merciful to His creation.

Cole, does God need to do anything at all to be good?"

Scott,

God doesn't need anything at all. He's self-sufficient in the trinity. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father with perfect love. They are complete and need nothing.

God freely chooses to give or withold grace. Whether it's common grace or saving grace. He's never obligated to be gracious. The nature of grace is that it's unmerrited favor. He doesn't owe it to anything. Especialy sinners.

Dr. Groothuis, thanks for your comment. As you know, in a piece of sarcasm one cannot lay out his reasons for a statement such as I made about Augustine's theory of good and evil. While it seems clear to me that you have studied this more than I have, I'd like to refer you to A.M. Weisberger's book, Suffering Belief: Evil and the Anglo-American Defense of Theism, chapter 2. She labels it a "Concessionary Solution" in that it concedes the argument from evil. She does so in a section labeled "Evil as an Illusion." "No matter what we wish to call the particular experiential phenomenon in question, the pain still feels the same," she argues. Such a theory "is as implausible as describing the color green as the absence of red, orange and other colors." And should we wish to accept linguistic solutions like this one then if evil is a privation why is there less good in the world anyway?

And just so we're clear here, I think you're asking atheists to equivocate in our use of the word evil by forcing us to presuppose good design. By the word "evil" we mean suffering and pain, something monkeys, dogs, cats and mice experience who have no linguistic capabilities or theological conceptions of design. They can experience it and not like it without reference to design. Since we are related to them, so can we. And none of us like it.

Pat Robertson is a moron of the very highest magnitude. I think for any thinking Christian, if they are being honest, events in Haiti are one of the biggest arguments against belief in an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God. For me the only way I can reconcile such a belief is by trying to look at the world through non-temporal eyes. If it is true that we are eternal beings and that death is not the end, and that in the future wrongs and injustices will be righted. If, and only if this is true (and there is no way in this life of finding out either way) then there is the possibility that God is real.

Breckmin said..."Clearly an earthquake that results in death is judgement for anyone who didn't know Christ...but it is this way for ALL deaths. 1000 years from now, what will be the difference between whether or not you died in a plane crash, a storm or an earthquake? We all die. Fifty years from now I will probably be dead (on earth in this temporary body)as well as most of you. Death comes to us all..and it affects us in different ways. - 12:51 AM, January 16, 2010"

You're getting tunnel vision with your defenses. Open up a little. You're focusing now on death in and of itself.

Try thinking about the suffering now: Those who didn't die, and will now have to live with a city and personal property destroyed, dozens of dead family members, perhaps life long injuries. The suffering is immense, and if there is a god, god let this happen, and you apparently think this god has good reason, even though you don't know what it is - you just assume it's good.

This is more of an aside but you have no idea, if this god is real, that this god of yours has told you the whole truth. You have no way of knowing if this god sent us a book of lies so we'll walk into his trap. You have know way of knowing for sure, that when you hear god speak to you, he's not actually lying. Being that he's all powerful he could easily make every particle in your body feel as if he's telling you the truth. There's no proof for any of it. No proof he's good, no proof he's bad. No proof he exists.

There is a scripture whereby Jesus advises ppl not to view disastrous events as being a result of a judgemental and condemning God. He identified this perspective and lifestyle as 'perishing' -- a person who holds this view and approach towards crises is one that is in need of salvation - I agree with Him. Instead of scrutinizing pain and suffering (when God already advises us that this is a very real and present situation) we ought to assess our own ability to respond to crises with compassion.

It is a sad but compelling commentary on how little faith there is in this world when it takes a disaster of this magnitude to draw our focus on a country that has a longstanding record of human deprivation and poverty. Where else ought we be turning our focus to help others??

Stephanie wrote, ""Praying is equal to masturbating. Christians do it to make themselves feel better. It's a very selfish thing to do when so many are dying."

I recognize this attitude that was placed on me by others in my childhood. Accusations and reproach only stigmatize the process of seeking peace and joy - stigma keeps one in a state of perpetual appeasement of an angry and demanding idol. I find it a cruel demand to expect one to become distressed over situations one can not totally alleviate - and yet, so many associate distressfulness and helplessnes as an acceptable relationship habit. Instead, do what you can with a whole-hearted attitude without imposing a debt or reproach upon others or yourself. By faith, one doesn't need to remain as a victim or victimizer.

While that is part of the contradiction I'm trying to point out, that wasn't my question.

To rephrase, does God need to take any action at all to be good?

Because it seems that Christians such as yourself have decided to call the act of God anything good "grace" and then proceed to assert that grace isn't merited, which does not follow. Essentially God wouldn't need to take any action at all to be considered good.

For example, If I recall correctly, don't you believe it's unnecessary for God to keep any of the promises he's supposedly made for him to be good? This would mean that God could create us and simply walk away at any point, leaving us in our current situation should he choose, yet still be "good."

If this is the case, then it's unclear what value there is in saying God is good, other than allowing God to exist regardless of what we observe.

God is good period. Grace is unmerrited favor. That's just what it is. It's unearned. When God gives it He does something good. When He witholds it He does nothing wrong and He therefore remains good. He obviously has moraly justifiable reasons for allowing evil and suffering.

God isn't obligated to keep His promises but He freely chooses to keep them. God isn't constrained by anything outside Himself. He always acts according to His perfect nature. Does that help?

There is no contradiction with a God of grace and evil and suffering. There's a contradiction with your idea of love and evil and suffering.

"Evil is real in the sense that rust is real. But rust cannot exist apart from metal and certain conditions pertaining to that metal."

Is anybody else sick of this type of infantile thinking? How do you compare the oxidation of a finite substance created by mortal people with the suffering of subjects to a Holy King who has infinite power. Evil is not an equal predicate to rust. Do you see how you are equivocating on variables here? Do you? Or do you want to simply use rhetoric to defend a concept that doesn't hold?

God's emotional life is infinitely complex. We cannot completely comprehend it. The Bible says God is grieved and angered when bad things happen and He is joyful when good things happen. Right now there are millions of good and bad things happening all over the world. So, God is right now all at the same time:

HappyGrievedAngeredJoyful

etc. etc.

We cannot FULLY comprehend the infinite complexity of God's emotional life.

If you can say with confidence that God is an emotional creature, then God is *not* unfathomable. He is fathomable, because you can fathom that he is an emotional creature, and emotions are something we can understand.

You completely did not understand what I said, so don't act like you refuted me.

God is eternal. He's always had an emotional life. Maybe He's also been creating things for eternity. It's hard to understand. The finite cannot FULLY comprehend the infinite. We are left with a bit of mystery when it comes to the infinite.

Cole -- But his "emotions" aren't our emotions. Our emotions have a biochemical basis. You could even say our emotions ARE chemicals, or at least the outcome of chemical interactions. Replace the chemical, you replace the emotion. What is the basis of god's emotions? Are our emotions merely crude material approximations of god's "spiritual" emotions?

Which brings me back to the gender issue: in what sense is god male? The various physical indicators of our gender occur because of hormones. There are also cultural cues that indicate gender.

Since god is non-corporeal, and since god precedes culture, what is it that makes him male? And, again, does god have the full expression of gender?

If he is intrinsically good then he doesn't need anything to make him good because he will be good intrinsically. That self-sufficiency proves your doctrine wrong Cole, for you say he does evil and is still good. But if he does evil then he is not intrinsically good, and therefore is not self-sufficient as far as goodness and is in need of something to make him good.

The topic that this conversation is moving towards is, in a way, talked about in a podcast called Reasonable Doubts. You should check it out. Here is a link where it can be downloaded in full for free.

There are multiple problems here with understanding concepts relative to consistency. Magnumdb accused me of "tunnel vision" with my defense..but this is exactly what is going on here when failing to address the fact that EVERYTHING God does is logically good...including what WE (as humans)call (the English word) "evil" when we apply it to our own suffering and circumstances.Saying that "God brings forth evil circumstances" is from a anthropomorphic point of view..NOT a cosmic point of view.Because this is complicated at the point of our language structure (which is imperfect with multiple meanings) we fail to see the imperfection of words such as "all loving" (clearly God does not love satan and his demons), "all powerful" (the word 'all' wrongfully encompasses things which are nonsense and self-contradictory) and even the word"evil" is relative to perspectives and circumstances.

Beowulf, I am NOT a Calivinist. I reject Calvinism as incomplete {even though I spend much of my time defending the parts that arecorrect).

"Try thinking about the suffering now: Those who didn't die, and will now have to live with a city and personal property destroyed, dozens of dead family members, perhaps life long injuries. The suffering is immense, and if there is a god, god let this happen, and you apparently think this god has good reason, even though you don't know what it is - you just assume it's good."

There is suffering EVERYWHERE in this temporary creation. It is only going to get worse with more earthquakes, more natural disasters, more diseases, etc.It is a temporary creation where God is dealing with the REAL problem of evil...NOT in explaining it..but in how it is a danger to His Eternal Elect Children Whom He is not willing to lose ANY of. (Calvinism doesn't deal with logical concepts that address the multiple connected premises which explain Theodicy).

Yes, there is horrible suffering. It should TEACH us so that we never forget for the rest of eternity the consequences of death.The savagery of death is all around us and can be seen when an animal eats another animal. So also is the crushing of human bodies AS WELL as the suffering of the living.

What about the "test?" What about those who become closer to their Creator because of such tragedies?What about those who "call on the Name of the Lord" and He saves them for all of eternity. The eternal glorification of LOVE here is greater than the temporary creation which will pass. Does 50 years of suffering really mean that much compared to the suffering which is eternal? Since most people do not know that logical separation and judgement is an actual reality this question will appear superfluous to them.

This temporary creation is a test as well as a place to be rewarded for (logically) "trusting" the Creator. The test proves who you are in relationship to the Man that the Creator became.

How can you ever understand pleasure without pain? How can you ever understand peace and feeling good without suffering? If someone objects "the suffering in Haiti shouldn't have to exist in order for me to enjoy..such and such" - please understand that this is EVASIVE to the concept of contrast and the experience of different degrees. It is also evasive to KNOWLEDGE and our learning.Until you address the experience of contrast itself and how it is related to knowledge you are not answering the question.Having nerves that experience both pain and pleasure is important to teach us knowledge...just as this temporary creation is teaching us about good and evil.

Knowledge and experience of contrast is just "one" small piece of the puzzle.

Something which can NOT be defended in a universe of choices (which are both causes and effects for other people)where people are all born under difference circumstances (at different points of time all experiencing the results of different choices of other people).

I have asserted the "Law of Unfairness" and will continue to open it up for falsification if someone can give ONE single example of true fairness in this universe (often easily reduced to(situational)sharing).

If everything that God does is "logically good", it is no longer useful to even describe God's actions, at all. In fact, it is incoherent, by (our) definition. God just is, then.

And that's fine, but you either need to stop applying the word to God, or alternatively to humans, because you are equivocating between meanings, and a clear use of language (and hopefully definitions) is essential to communication.

I would suggest therefore that you not bother applying it to God.

But here's the thing: none of that prevents us — and I would suggest that it compels us, in fact — from concluding that God is therefore evil, by definition.

Now, that may not concern you, but I am also then justified in concluding that you, Breckmin, are also morally suspect, by definition, for accepting and even praising such evil.

And it gets even worse, because you'd need to explain why humans have any obligation at all to only do things that are considered good, if God is also happy to do evil, by definition?

In other words, if our definition of good and evil does not apply and is not even relevant when speaking about God (because even evil is good), why should we think differently? Because God says so? But again, this is incoherent.

And, of course, that suggests that morality really is arbitrary, and that there is no objective or absolute standard, which has always been a fairly devastating objection to any kind of divine command theory (and almost all types of religious objective morality, in fact).

So, of course, if God had told us that murder was good, and that compassion was evil, you would be happy to oblige, no doubt? And it's not even as if you can say that God only ever does good by our definition (which is a common objection), because you have admitted that God can do evil by our definition!

By the way, you have mentioned that we cannot "understand pleasure without pain". To some extent, I agree, although I would say that we learn and grow from our bad experiences. However, that misunderstands a fundamental aspect of the problem of evil. Nobody, as far as I am aware, has suggested that there should be no evil, pain, suffering, etc, in the world, or even that it would be beneficial, in our current state of being.

But there are two objections to this. Firstly, God could have created a world that was exactly as it currently is, and so that we have the opportunity to learn and to grow as we do now, but without any of the bad things, whatsoever. To deny that is deny that God could have arranged things in such a way.

Also, even if God had good reasons for allowing us to experience suffering, that says absolutely nothing about the sheer amount of suffering that some humans have to experience, which most people would agree is often entirely disproportionate to the amount of pleasure and happiness that they experience. It is unnecessary suffering that is the problem.

And, even if you believe that we somehow need to experience holocausts and natural disasters, that doesn't begin to explain why many animals experience similar, if not far worse, levels of suffering, and have done so for hundreds of millions of years prior to our arrival.

To paraphrase a philosophy of religion professor to his students, if you don't think that the sheer amount of cruel and unnecessary suffering is a problem for your religious beliefs, you obviously haven't thought about it enough.

I think I understand what you are saying, and no doubt the question of all the cruelty in the world might be a "problem" for believers and non-believers alike, but, in a nutshell, aren't you simply saying you just don't like the way God does things? For the sake of argument, let's grant that at least part of what you are saying is true; that the world, at least in parts, is very, very cruel. How does admitting to that amount to evidence against the existence of a diety?

"aren't you simply saying you just don't like the way God does things?"

In a sense, yes, although I don't want to give the impression that it is why I don't believe in God.

It should be completely unreasonable to conclude that God might be evil. I should be the one making all kinds of excuses for why, even though it obviously looks like an all-loving God exists, it is still possible that He doesn't. But we don't live in that world.

The problem of evil can be stated in a number of ways. One is as a kind of incompatibility argument, where what we are told about God is then compared to real world facts, and it is concluded that the two are incompatible, and so, God (or at least, that conception of God) doesn't exist.

But it is also possible to argue that, even if God does exist, it is reasonable to conclude that He is evil, and that I cannot therefore worship Him. And this argument applies even if God really is all-loving, etc, because it is unreasonable to expect me to accept something that is contrary to reason. Even if I wanted to, I cannot accept that the amount of suffering in the world is either good or necessary. So it would require me to compromise everything that I believe in as a moral agent.

And it makes even less sense when you consider that I am supposed to be the finite being. I suppose that this is where faith is required, but even then, it contradicts everything that I have learned from my experience of the world. At best, it is completely unreasonable to expect me to somehow understand (although, of course, I am not expected to, as I am supposed to just accept it in ignorance), and at worst, it is downright cruel and unjust.

So, even if I were convinced that God exists, unless I could find a truly satisfactory explanation for what I see and experience, my conscience would not permit me to worship Him.

"How does admitting to that amount to evidence against the existence of a diety?"

It is incompatible with a God that does not want sentient beings to suffer unimaginable and excessive pain and suffering and is able to intervene (or even one that could have created a different world).

Now, of course, these kinds of arguments are always open to interpretation, but that is why it is important to agree about what it is that we mean when we say that, for example, God is all-loving, or God is just, or that God is intensely concerned about human affairs. Otherwise, it is trivially easy to say that you don't believe that God is any of those things in order to escape from the argument.

So, the problem of evil and/or suffering doesn't rule out all conceptions of God, and it's possible to argue that it doesn't rule out the kind of God that most people believe in, but for many more people, it is very powerful evidence against the existence of a God that cares about human suffering and has the ability to do something about it.

Written previously, ""I don't believe God is obligated to be merciful to His creation."

I think what is being said here is that God is not under compulsion or being emotionally bullied into caring about humanity such as we are inclined to do, but He also desires to share the good work of caring about one another --- He doesn't use His goodness to bully or subjugate ppl like those who do good works out of moral conceitedness.

Then Greg queried, "And since god is gendered (I'll leave it up to you how he might be a "he"), does he experience romantic longing? If not, what is the point of his gender?"

While you are thinking in terms of gender for the purpose of romance, I believe Jesus exemplified God as a male because, historically, the male gender is viewed as an icon of empowerment - I believe Jesus was male to demonstrate a human authority that does not abuse or misuse that power but uses it benevolently and sacrificially to aid vulnerable humanity.

"because you are equivocating between meanings, and a clear use of language (and hopefully definitions) is essential to communication."

Because it is clearly more complicated then simply "blaming God" - this is why we quibble backand forth on why "evil" (a double meaning word) exists - or why God "allows" evil or is in control of evil or in control of circumstances which appear to be evil or "ordains" and "determines" evil.All of these are clearly imperfect especially when you look at the difference between mathematics and philology. Languages are developed by imperfect beings trying to define and redefine meanings. Imperfection is everywhere BUT those who trust God and trust in the LOGIC of God (which is contained all throughout the medium of scripture which is why we use logic as the greatest hermeneutic to interpret scripture)end up on the correct side of truth most of the time(especially with the Help of God's Holy Spirit to open their eyes up to this truth/logic).

We are all like little children surrounded by imperfection in our own imperfections. We are all learning. This is logical, btw.Everyone is at different stages of learning...different stages of trial and error..that is why there are so many different denominations in Christianity for example.

Any two people who think exactly alike on everything...one of them isn't thinking. Apply this to The WatchTower and you will see a true religious cult.

Yes, DaimanP saying God is good is like saying "God is God." That is because God is the Creator and Owner of the universe and everything that is in the universe.(Imperfect statement because God does NOT "own" sin and disobedience or the evil creations of those beings He created who create things also).God "owns everything" is in reverence to all matter and existences which He creates and sustains. Beings whom He sustains He owns until He disowns them (this is eternally a bad thing).Logic = we can easily complicate the Ownership of things in the universe with hyper-technicalities.The fact is you have to be pragmatic in your application of logic. Yes, God is an Incredibly Holy and Righteous Creator and because the world does NOT understand this..they do not realize just how "bad" (or what an incredible violation) sin/disobedience/distrust actually is. That is just one small reason why they do not see the logic of eternal separation and exact punishment for exact violations. IF you say "eternal punishment is not an exact punishment for a finite or temporary one time sin"you are MISSING the connected premises of being an eternal being created in the Image of God as well as the Holiness of God and the violation of any sin at all as being incompatible with God's nature..etc. You are also missing the fact that the sin is in the historical record for all of eternity and would exist as a mockery against a Holy God if it is not atoned for of punished. There is also a theory that beings in hell will continue to sin against God and bring forth more punishment for themselves.

What this comes down to is the failure to understand the absolute Holiness of God and the violation of sin (which are morally illogical decisions to make).Multiple connected premises make it impossible to isolate on "torture" as though it is simply something one person does to another person. Omniscience and logical Ownership of the universe trumps all created beingsobjections.

God is light and in Him there isno darkness at all. God is NOT evil..by cosmic default He sets the standard for GOOD in the universe which He created.

"are also morally suspect, by definition, for accepting and even praising such evil."

I was created to glorify the Creator by mere logic of the Creator/creation relationship. If I do not glorify the Creator then it would be logical for the Creator to eternally disown me. (a very unfathomable and horrible thing for my personal experience).The way WE glorify the Creator is by confessing our sins and TRUSTING in His ability to redeem us from the inevitable sin/disobedience/lack of faith which is cosmically due to a lack of knowledge which must be learned, etc.

"if God is also happy to do evil, by definition?"

God Who owns and created the universe will only do good by logical definition and default to His Will which trumps all other wills that He created. Augustine has already answered the false dilemma of the "Euthyphro Dilemma."

Good is NOT good just because God says something about good as though it is separate from His Will or Nature. It is actually the Nature of the Creator which sets the logical standard for the universe which He created. It is His WILL which would set the standard for all good.

Because He has created a universe with "wills" (creatures of volition) this gets complicated.

Often the failure to understand is the failure to identify and differentiate between complication and contradiction.

Logic = Pray to the Creator for protection. Matt. 6:13. Pray for protection from that which is NOT from God and these things which are subterfuge via invalid inductions which lead to error, as well as unpractical possibilities and circular reasonings.

IF you say "God has to be assumed in order to pray to Him - and this is circular" - you have NOT concluded correctly.

The Creator is "concluded" via evidences. The logical fallacy of Hard/Explicit/Strong atheism is the first conclusion which leads you to technical atheism or agnosticism. A correct view of science leads you to examining empirical evidences which are falsifiable. False definitions in science lead you to conclude the circular assumption that everything must be explained "naturally" and incorrecly eliminates theistic implication.Science leads you to agnostic theism. Logic and an examination of the evidence that led you to agnostic theism leads you to specific requirements for such aCreator. (concluded). Comparative religions leads you to the conclusion of which Creator is capable of such creation (conclusion).

Praying to the God of the universe who is clearly CONCLUDED (Romans 1:20) when you don't have pseudo limitations in scientific definition is the logical thing to do, especially if you are honest about your own inabilities to prevent yourself from being deceived by your own false definitions and imperfections.

Praying to the Infinite Creator is the most logical thing you can begin do.

Cole wrote: God is good period. Grace is unmerrited favor. That's just what it is.

Cole, I know this is what you believe. But, again it doesn't seem to be anything more than a definition theists have created to get around the problem of evil and make it impossible for God to do anything wrong.

He obviously has moraly justifiable reasons for allowing evil and suffering.

As someone outside Christianity, I don't think it is remotely obvious. Instead, it appears to be an assumption you must make so God can exist given what we observe.

Perhaps you mean, it's obviously the only way a good God could exist given what we observe? But this doesn't seem to be the same thing.

God isn't obligated to keep His promises but He freely chooses to keep them. God isn't constrained by anything outside Himself. He always acts according to His perfect nature. Does that help?

So, since God "freely" keeps his promises, he is good? Or would he be good even if he didn't keep his promises?

God doesn't need anything. He freely creates out of the overflow of His grace.

While that sounds "profound", I don't see how this explains why God is good.

Stephanie wrote: Christians do it to make themselves feel better. It's a very selfish thing to do when so many are dying."

M3 wrote: I find it a cruel demand to expect one to become distressed over situations one can not totally alleviate - and yet, so many associate distressfulness and helplessnes as an acceptable relationship habit.

M3,

I don't think this was the point Stephanie was trying to make.

Many Christians believe that one of the outcomes of prayer is that God will physically intercede in various situations in the world. However, if this is actually true, God intentionally keeps his existence hidden by only responding in ways that are equal to statistical chance.

This has two rather significant implications...

01. In regards to actually making physical changes in reality, prayer and non prayer appear be indistinguishable. Lack of prayer results in the same outcome.

02. If someone who's intention is to actually cause physical change actually took concrete actions, rather than prayed, the result would be significantly greater as all of these actions would have significantly more effect than statistical chance.

To clarify what I belief is Stephanie's point: if someone prays that God would intercede on the behalf of someone other than themselves, and feels better because of it, this isn't a win-win situation. They have solved their problem at the expense of others and spread of mystification.

However, to be clear, if it's someone's intention to improve themselves by contemplating their situation, how they could help or to realize there are limits to their ability to make change in a situation, reflection could be fruitful in this area.

You might suggest a prayer that God would help one accept that the outcome is in "God's hands" is beneficial since it promotes alleviation of distress in such situations. However, whenever the Bible reveals God's hand was behind the outcome of any situation, it's aways mired in some kind of teaching and punishment or reward on a personal, family or cultural scale. Someone is always to blame and it's often someone close to the situation at hand.

For example, we never see God saying something to the effect of, "Scott is a relatively good guy, but saving Scott would put me over quota this month and that would mean there would actually be evidence that I exist. So, while it pains me deeply to do so, I must let Scott die."

This is in contrast to one actually paying attention and the practical realization that we are finite beings. Therefore, there is only so much we can do.

To Cole Houx: You seem to trust the fifth officer (and perhaps the third). You might in fact be a close friend of all twelve.Oh, evil, evil.So much is written about the problem of evil. Yet it is all so simple. Read The Tale of the Twelve Officers. There is not much more to be said, I think.

Dan(from a while ago),I don't really understand how people believing in God will cause the end of humanity. It gives hope and joy to some people, so why try to take that away? I can understand why someone who believes that the only way to be saved is through belief in Jesus might want to tell others about him and try to convince them to accept their faith. If they don't, they are condemning people to hell! But I don't really understand why it matters for an atheist to convince people God does not exist. Who and how does it help anyone?